https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168593
V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11 | |2267 CC| |[email protected], | |[email protected], | |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- Seems a dupe of bug 112267, and I remain opposed to attempting any alias annotation or translation/localization of Unicode glyph names for use in the SCD UI. Proper charmap representation in our SCD is the key to working with Unicode, I argued against collapsing our font tables, instead showing full font chart with Unicode sequence intact including "no-covered" blanks for font omitted glyphs. Translation, rather than alias annotation might be feasible--but it would be so much to ask of our l10n translators. As noted on bug 112267 a Pootle based "translation" project from the FSF hosting era https://github.com/samhocevar/unicode-translation/tree/master/po was stood up with partial "translations" in 11 languages of Unicode at the 4.0 release. Would be a straight forward l10n effort, but frankly not clear TDF is the right organization to broker it. Though could make the case that we already have a community of active translators dedicated to the LibreOffice effort. Except that since it would have to respond to user locale we can't afford to do it half way. If started it would have to be finished for our supported locales, and there would need to be rework of SCD to respond to locale. At Unicode 17.0, each PO file could require up to 297,000 records--though some subset ~30,000 is more likely. And, imagine in this era an initial translation against our LO delivered scripts could be automated in some sequence, so l10n effort could be QC/validation--and once complete somewhat static. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
